[DT-O] For your review - proposed responses

[Gomes, Chuck]

Olivier,

Would you please provide suggested rewording for the sentence?  If you can do that in the next hour, we can finalize the DT-O recommendations and send them to the CWG list before the next CWG call.

Chuck

From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl at gih.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:32 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Marika Konings; DT-O Mailing List (dto at icann.org)
Subject: Re: [DT-O] For your review - proposed responses

Hello all,

OK with the text except:
"Fully approved budget to be done on an annual basis."

This sentence needs rewriting (grammar).
Kind regards,

Olivier
On 28/05/2015 00:36, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Marika.  I made some suggested edits that are highlighted in the attached file.

All - please make sure that you are comfortable with the edits I made.

Chuck

From: dto-bounces at icann.org<mailto:dto-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:dto-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 1:07 PM
To: DT-O Mailing List (dto at icann.org<mailto:dto at icann.org>)
Subject: [DT-O] For your review - proposed responses

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed responses from today's DT O call to those comments that were submitted in relation to the IANA budget. If you have any comments or concerns, please share those today as the idea is to share these with the CWG tomorrow ahead of the start of the meetings.

Best regards,

Marika

================

#125: Proposed DT O response: PTI should develop a strategic plan which should outline strategic priorities (at a minimum every 4 years, similar to ICANN's strategic plan), while PTI should also have a yearly budget that is reviewed by the community. Fully approved budget to be done on an annual basis. PTI should submit a budget to ICANN at least 9 months in advance of the fiscal year. It is the expectation that the ICANN Board should aim to approve the PTI budget at least three months in advance of the fiscal year. It is the view of DT O that the IANA budget should be approved by the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than the ICANN Budget (similar to the special community budget request, for example). See also the comment by .nz.

DT O agrees with AFNIC's suggetion for an annual independent financial audit.

DT O notes that the final paragraph is expected to be addressed by the CWG in the context of the PTI structure and composition.

#283: DT O is of the view that benchmarking should be done against the cost estimates that ICANN finance is expected to provide (as requested by the CWG Chairs) not the $2.3 M as suggested by the commenter. Please also refer to the recommendations made by the CWG in the relevant annex of the proposal.

#316: DT O appreciates the feedback provided and notes there is no conflict between the two approaches.

#317: DT O appreciates the input provided and suggests that those steps are customised for how PTI is expected to develop its budget (as a best practice).

#319: DT O agrees with the comment of the CCWG-Accountability chairs and notes that a process should be developed possibly as part of the implementation of the proposal. The CWG should consider whether there are any elements that should be developed as part of the final proposal.




_______________________________________________

dto mailing list

dto at icann.org<mailto:dto at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dto



--

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD

http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dto/attachments/20150528/d40dbe2f/attachment.html>